Supreme Court Win Is In The Cards For Jan. 6 Defendants, Lawyers Predict

 by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court will strike down the use of a key federal law in the Biden administration’s ongoing prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants and in the process shut down the government’s case against hundreds of defendants, legal experts predict.

If the top court finds an Enron-era obstruction law—18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c)—is being used improperly against the defendants, their charges are likely to be thrown out.

At issue is the evidence-tampering provision that appears in the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, which was part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act aimed at curbing wrongdoing on Wall Street.

President Trump was indicted under the same federal statute and also stands to benefit if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendant, sources told The Epoch Times.

Former police officer Joseph W. Fischer of Jonestown, Pennsylvania, is the main defendant in the case that revolves around protesting the impending congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election results at the U.S. Capitol.

Mr. Fischer was indicted two months after the Jan. 6 breach for obstructing an official proceeding; civil disorder; assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds; disorderly conduct; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

He entered not guilty pleas to the charges.

The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 13, 2023, to hear Fischer v. United States but oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.

Some defendants who arrived at the Capitol after Congress was evacuated on Jan. 6 were also charged with obstructing an official proceeding—the joint session of Congress that convened to count Electoral College votes and hear objections from lawmakers.

Several defendants have argued unsuccessfully at trial that they couldn’t have obstructed Congress because they weren’t present in the Capitol until after lawmakers left the complex.

Former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph W. Fischer (R) is accused of scuffling with police inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. (U.S. Department of Justice/Screenshot via The Epoch Times)

Obstruction Charge

The problem with the obstruction charge, according to attorneys interviewed by The Epoch Times, is that the accounting reform law under which Mr. Fischer and others have been charged, is being used by the Department of Justice to prosecute people who were exercising their First Amendment right to protest the congressional certification of election results.

The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation came about in the wake of fraud-related scandals at Enron Corp. and other major corporations. Enron employed dubious accounting practices to conceal falling profits and exaggerate earnings, and reportedly began destroying paperwork when they learned that indictments were on their way.

The bill was overwhelmingly approved by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush on July 30, 2002.

“No more easy money for corporate criminals, just hard time,” President Bush said when he signed the bill. “The era of low standards and false profits is over. No boardroom in America is above or beyond the law.”

The wording of 18 U.S. Code Section 1512(c) is focused on documentation and ensuring it’s made available for official proceedings, lawyers say.

Section 1512(c) states: “Whoever corruptly (1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or (2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

‘Utterly Absurd’

It is “utterly absurd” for the Biden administration to charge Jan. 6 protesters with a crime that carries a 20-year prison term, said Jim Burling, vice president of legal affairs for the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). PLF is a national nonprofit public interest law firm that challenges government abuses.

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they breach the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. (Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images)

“The Department of Justice should get an award for creativity and … [for] how they’ve come up with ways of using Sarbanes-Oxley well beyond what anybody ever thought it would be [used for].”

There are “so many statutes that are so vague these days that the Department of Justice often brings charges against people for things—that you have no idea that it’s supposedly criminal conduct, because Congress didn’t intend it to be criminal conduct.”

The department has been “notorious” over the years for overcharging people and “going for the brass ring when they could have a much more secure conviction on lesser charges,” Mr. Burling said.

The purpose of threatening a defendant with 20 years in prison “is to get people to capitulate—plead guilty” and many of the Jan. 6 defendants have already done so, he said.

Mr. Burling said the Justice Department is taking the section of the law that says “‘otherwise obstructs,’ and having it as a free-floating provision where anybody who otherwise obstructs any official proceeding, or attempts to do so can be subject to 20 years.”

“I think both the liberals and the conservatives on the Supreme Court are going to be very wary of this overcharging,” he said.

“Sarbanes-Oxley is a powerful tool against corporate corruption. That’s what … it was meant to be for, and that’s what the plain language of the statute talks about. You can’t simply separate these two sections out—section one and section two of 1512(c)—and pretend they’re completely different things.”

“The idea that section one is untethered from section two is rather creative, and I don’t think it’s going to hold water,” Mr. Burling said.

“I just don’t think the Supreme Court is going to go along with that, just like they put a kibosh on the charging of the fisherman in the Yates case … because he threw the allegedly undersized fish overboard.”

Mr. Burling was referring to Yates v. United States (2015) in which the Supreme Court threw out charges under Section 1519 of Sarbanes-Oxley against a fishing boat captain who disposed of evidence that undersized red groupers had been caught. A federal agent directed the captain to segregate the evidence, in this case the undersized fish, from the rest of the catch until the ship returned to port, but after the agent left the vessel the captain told his crew to toss the undersized fish overboard.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-win-cards-jan-6-defendants-lawyers-predict

Banks Take Advantage of a Free Money Arbitrage Opportunity Offered by the Fed

 Lesson of the Day: Banks do not turn down free money.

The Fed created a Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP) to bail out banks that foolishly levered into long-term interest rate bets that went sour.

The BTFP program allows banks to swap underwater US treasuries with the Fed at par value, effectively bailing out the speculators.

BTFP use soared along with bets that the Fed will soon cut rates.

Gaming the System

The Wall Street Journal reports The Fed Launched a Bank Rescue Program Last Year. Now, Banks Are Gaming It.

Borrowing from the Fed’s bank term funding program has increased to new highs in recent weeks, a strange consequence of the market’s flip to forecasting multiple Fed rate cuts over the coming 12 months.

The rate banks pay to use the program, BTFP for short, is tied to future interest-rate expectations. Now that investors have priced in a series of rate cuts later this year, banks are able to pocket the difference between what they pay to borrow the funds and what they can earn from parking the funds at the central bank as overnight deposits.

The facility charges banks a rate equivalent to the market’s expectation for where benchmark interest rates average over the next year, plus an additional 0.1 percentage point. Initially, borrowing was expensive because investors were pricing in higher rates in the future.

A dramatic reversal in rate expectations in recent months has changed the math.

The program is set to expire on March 11, barring an extension. On Tuesday, Michael Barr, the Fed’s vice chairman for banking supervision, suggested the facility wouldn’t be extended.

Free Money, Not Stress

Some analysts thought the increase in BTFP was related to additional stress on regional banks.

But that’s not what’s going on. Rather, banks see a chance for free money and are taking it.

Meanwhile please note Debt Jumps Past $34 Trillion, $1 Trillion Interest

The fallback position is not less of anything. Rather, it’s another clean continuing resolution.

A bipartisan majority wants more of this and more of that. So that is what you should expect.

The Fed wants to get interest rates down to curtail interest on debt rising above $1 trillion.

But deficits and debt are soaring.

Spending Deal Reached

Note that A Spending Deal Reached, But the Republican Freedom Caucus Condemns It

The deal does not address the border at all.

To get any border funding (that Biden will try to find a way to not honor), Republicans will have to further cave in on both Ukraine and Israel.

The total funding will be well in excess of the deal that Kevin McCarthy once had on the table.

https://mishtalk.com/economics/banks-take-advantage-of-a-free-money-arbitrage-opportunity-offered-by-the-fed/

"I Don't Recall": Forgetful Fauci's Memory Fails Over 100 Times During Congressional Grilling

 Anthony Fauci, the longtime head of the US National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) seemed sharp as a tack last year while jousting with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) over 'gain-of-function' research he funded in Wuhan, China - however now that the worm has turned, poor Fauci's memory appears to have failed him.

While under oath, Fauci, 83, told lawmakers that he 'could not recall' things a surprising number of times.

"There may be over 100 or so, so far, ‘I don’t recall’, ‘I don’t remember’ answers," said Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) following 14 hours of closed-door testimony in front of the House of Representatives Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic - his first time speaking under oath since he left office.

"We’re doing a lot of conversation about the process of research, of grants, oversight, if you will, of regulations, and possible solutions for a better path going forward," Wenstrup continued.

According to Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), lawmakers were going over the grants process with Fauci, trying to figure out whether US funding directly contributed to the creation of Covid-19, adding that Democrats even asked him about his involvement with a controversial paper that claimed COVID-19 couldn't have come from a lab.

Part of the private session drilled down on how Dr. Fauci defines gain-of-function, which is known to many scientists as enhancing the pathogenesis or transmissibility of a virus or pathogen.

Dr. Fauci has claimed that his agency did not fund gain-of-function research in China, even though a report from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), of which the NIAID is part, concluded that NIAID-funded experiments resulted in the creation of a bat coronavirus that made mice sicker. -Epoch Times

"The one thing that’s been most interesting is a new definition that we’ve heard, and Dr. Fauci refers to this as his operational definition of gain-of-function," said Wenstrup. "It’s something that we need to look into a little bit more. And so I think in the future, if he’s discussing this and he’s talking about gain of function, he needs to define his definition of gain-of-function research."

But Wenstrup was most surprised at how much Fauci 'forgot.'

"I think what I’m most surprised about is how much he doesn’t recall considering the severity of this event for the world, and that he was the face of the government’s response to COVID," he said.

That said, Fauci did recall recommending university vaccine mandates, and "admitted that America’s vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic could increase vaccine hesitancy in the future,” the panel said in a summary of the second day of questioning.

According to Fauci, recommendations to maintain a six-foot distance in schools, businesses and other places were not likely based on data.

"It just sort of appeared," Fauci was quoted as stating.

"Dr. Fauci’s transcribed interview revealed systemic failures in our public health system and shed light on serious procedural concerns with our public health authority," Wenstrup said, adding "It is clear that dissenting opinions were often not considered or suppressed completely, should a future pandemic arise, America’s response must be guided by scientific facts and conclusive data."

"While we remain frustrated with Dr. Fauci’s inability to recollect COVID-19 information that is important for our investigation, others we have spoken to do recall the facts. I appreciate Dr. Fauci’s willingness to testify privately in front of the select subcommittee and look forward to speaking with him further at a public hearing this year."

More via the Epoch Times;

Dr. Wenstrup said that a transcript would be made public “eventually” after it was reviewed by all parties.

COVID-19 Origins

Dr. Fauci, according to the panel, also told members that the idea that COVID-19 came from a laboratory is not a conspiracy theory.

He was grilled on his position on the origins of COVID-19 because for years he promoted the theory of a natural origin, even though to this day no animal host has been identified.

Dr. Fauci told reporters from the White House podium on April 17, 2020, that a new study featured “a group of highly qualified evolutionary virologists” who  “looked at the sequences [in the virus] and the sequences in bats as they evolve.”

“And the mutations that it took to get to the point where it is now is totally consistent with a jump of a species from an animal to a human,” he added. “I don’t have the authors right now, but we can make that available to you.”

That paper involved five scientists detailing their view on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, saying in part that genomic data “clearly show that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.”

Dr. Fauci is not mentioned in the paper but he along with his then-boss, Dr. Francis Collins, prompted its drafting, according to an email from Kristian Andersen, one of the authors, obtained by the subcommittee.

“Our main work over the last couple of weeks has been focused on trying to disprove any type of lab theory,” Mr. Andersen said in another missive.

Previously released emails show that both Drs. Fauci and Collins were asked for, and provided, feedback on earlier drafts of the paper.

Mr. Andersen and others later received an increase in grants from Dr. Fauci’s agency, an Epoch Times review found.

An email published in 2023 revealed that Dr. David Morens, a deputy of Dr. Fauci, said Dr. Fauci had suddenly given him approval to discuss the origins of COVID-19 with National Geographic.

“I interpret this to mean that our government is lightening up but that Tony doesn’t want his fingerprints on origin stories,” he wrote.

Many experts, including analysts at the FBI, now consider the origins either an open question or say the available evidence shows it came from a lab.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/i-dont-recall-forgetful-faucis-memory-fails-over-100-times-during-congressional-grilling

US Warship Directly Targeted In 'Largest Ever' Houthi Red Sea Missile Attack

 The US Navy shot down nearly two dozen missiles and drones in a major new Red Sea incident, US Central Command (CENTCOM) has confirmed. Given it included at least 21 Houthi missiles and drones launched from Yemen, it marks one of the single largest attacks to take place there since Oct. 7. The Associated Press dubbed it the "largest-ever barrage of drones and missiles targeting shipping in the Red Sea."

An initial military statement had called the Tuesday 9:15pm (local) assault a "complex attack" conducted by the Iran-aligned militants, which occurred off the Yemeni port cities of Hodeida and Mokha. CENTCOM tallied that it involved 18 one-way attack drones, two anti-ship cruise missiles and an anti-ship ballistic missile, according to the statement.

It generally targeted an area of the southern Red Sea where "dozens" of merchant vessels were traversing at the time. Some defense sources tallied that the total projectile count was 24. Secretary of State Antony Blinken used the opportunity Wednesday to once again charge that Iran is 'aiding and abetting' these Red Sea attacks.

Multiple allied warships patrolling the waters as part of Operation Guardian were said to have been involved in the intercept of the drones and missiles, which reportedly resulted in no casualties, damage, or direct impact. According to US defense officials speaking to CNN:

Three destroyers took part in the shoot down of the barrage, one of the officials said.

Two US destroyers, as well as F-18 fighter jets from the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier, participated in the combined effort to shoot down the missiles and drones, according to Central Command. The HMS Diamond, an air defence destroyer from the UK’s Royal Navy, was also part of the effort.

It was a major and unusual engagement, even as these Houthi incidents have ramped up to lately become daily events, also because the US carrier and a fighter jet were engaged in repelling it.

But crucially, and buried in all the latest headlines, the Houthis have since confirmed that their missiles directly targeted American warships. The important assertion was picked up in The Associated Press as follows:

The Houthis, a Shiite group that has held Yemen’s capital of Sanaa since 2014, later claimed responsibility for the attack in a televised statement by rebel spokesman Brig. Gen. Yahya Saree. Saree claimed the attack “targeted an American ship that was providing support to the Zionist entity,” without offering any further information. He also described it as an “initial response” to American troops sinking Houthi vessels and killing 10 rebel fighters last week.

The White House has for many weeks sought to downplay or even obscure the fact that the Houthis are directly targeting American military vessels. This as President Biden has waffled on requests from Pentagon leadership to hit back directly against Houthi launch positions.

It is important to recall this Politico report from early December:

Some current and former military officials were frustrated by the administration’s initial response to the Houthis’ Sunday attacks on the ships. The Houthis launched four drone and missile attacks on three ships; the destroyer USS Carney, responding to the distress calls, shot down three drones in its vicinity. Those current and former officials say the Iran-backed group’s increasingly aggressive behavior poses a significant risk to American forces in the region, and took issue with the administration’s public statements on Monday, which they say downplayed that threat.

And fast-forward to this week. Central Command has at this point confirmed, "This is the 26th Houthi attack on commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea since Nov. 19."

Britain's military command is signaling it's about to take a more offensive posture against the Houthis...

The Pentagon has meanwhile long worried it has already in effect lost 'deterrence' capability, evident also in the increasing impunity with which the Houthis launch drones and missiles, which are also at times aimed at Israel.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-warship-directly-targeted-large-scale-houthi-missile-drone-attack

Sana Biotechnology Stock Jumps After Early Data on CAR T-Cell Therapy

 Sana Biotechnology's stock jumped after the company discussed early Phase 1 trial results from its SC291 CAR T-cell therapy

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sana-biotechnology-stock-jumps-after-early-data-on-car-t-cell-therapy-36f97882

Regeneron Will Test Wegovy Drug Combos to Protect Muscle Mass

 Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. will soon start testing its antibody drugs in combination with Wegovy to see if they prevent muscle loss, a problem that drugmakers including Eli Lilly & Co. have been racing to solve. 

GLP-1 drugs made by Lilly and rival Novo Nordisk A/S have exploded in popularity, but experts have started raising concerns that older patients may also be at risk of losing critical muscle mass that helps prevent injuries. 

Up to 40% of the weight patients lose on GLP-1 drugs may actually be due to decreases in lean muscle mass, Regeneron’s Chief Scientific Officer George Yancopoulos said in an interview at the annual JPMorgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco. This could “potentially be a public health disaster,” he said.

Later this year, Regeneron will start testing two of its antibody drugs in combination with Wegovy to see if they preserve or help to build muscle. The trial will also look at whether the combinations help prevent patients from rapidly regaining weight after they stop taking drugs such as Wegovy or Lilly’s Zepbound.

Lilly and Novo have made billions selling obesity treatments and similar diabetes drugs that promote weight loss, and Regeneron is among a group of drugmakers looking for inroads into the market. 

Other companies are also trying to tackle the muscle-loss problem. Eli Lilly, for one, is studying Zepbound in combination with a drug it acquired from obesity startup Versanis Bio. It’s also looking at combining the treatment with an experimental muscle-atrophy drug from BioAge Labs, a closely held California biotech company. 

Yancopoulos said the company is also utilizing genetic insights to design novel, next-generation weight-loss drugs. In 2021, Regeneron said its scientists discovered a rare genetic mutation associated with protection against obesity. Those with the gene tended to weigh about 12 pounds less than those without it, he said, and the drugmaker has been testing different therapeutic approaches to mimic these “genetic superpowers.” 

Experts say there’s plenty of room for newcomers in obesity-related treatments. For Regeneron, weight-loss drugs could help boost profits as competition ramps up for the company’s best-selling drugs including Eylea, which treats some retinal conditions, and Dupixent, used to prevent severe asthma attacks and treat conditions such as eczema.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/regeneron-will-test-wegovy-drug-combos-to-protect-muscle-mass-1.2020277

Ginkgo Updates at J.P. Morgan

 Expects to meet 2023 new program and revenue guidance ranges

Ended the year with nearly $950 million in cash and cash equivalents, a strong balance sheet providing multi-year runway as Ginkgo sees operational efficiencies in the business

Strong growth among blue chip pharma and biotech ("biopharma") customers including Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, Merck and Boehringer Ingelheim

Management to highlight updates today at the 42nd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference at 9:45 a.m. PT (12:45 p.m. ET)

As previously announced, co-founder and CEO Jason Kelly is scheduled to participate in a presentation at the 42nd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference on Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 9:45 a.m. PT (12:45 p.m. ET).

Further details, a webcast link, and a replay of the presentation will be posted on the company's investor relations website at https://investors.ginkgobioworks.com/events.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ginkgo-bioworks-provides-business-updates-at-jp-morgan-healthcare-conference-302031259.html